Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Preliminary Amendment, filed 01/09/2025, has been entered.
Claim 12 is cancelled.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (“Hu”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0304785 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) (i.e. ‘Filter Unit 312’ including ALF ‘346’ ) [Figs. 8-10; para. 0196, 0203: ‘filter unit 312 may be configured to perform ALF techniques’] processing of reconstructed video, the method comprising:
receiving reconstructed pixels, wherein the reconstructed pixels comprise a current block (i.e. ‘predictive block’) [Fig. 8; para. 0207: the ‘Reconstruction unit 214’; ‘Filter unit 216 may then perform filtering (e.g. ALF filtering …) based on the output from reconstruction unit 214’];
deriving a current filtered output from an ALF (i.e. ‘perform adaptive loop filtering … on samples resulting from the reconstruction of a current block’) for a current sample in the current block [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF],
wherein the ALF comprises an input term (i.e. ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’) [para. 0072-0075, 0212] associated with one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered samples [para. 0083: ‘Optimal filter coefficients for each class are predicted using a prediction pool of fixed filters’], and
wherein said one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered samples are from a restricted area (e.g. ‘a block boundary of the block’; ‘samples located along a first one or more directions relative to the current sample (402) [Fig. 13]’) [Fig. 7; para. 0212-0214: ‘The second one or more directions are symmetrically opposite to the first one or more directions relative to the current sample’] with respect to the current sample; and
providing filtered-reconstructed pixels (i.e. ‘decoded picture buffer 218’) [Fig. 8; para. 0177: ‘filter unit 216 may store the filtered reconstructed blocks to DPB 218’], wherein the filtered-reconstructed pixels comprise the current filtered output [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF].
Regarding claim 3, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the restricted area corresponds to a pre-defined region (e.g. ‘a block boundary of the block’; ‘samples located along a first one or more directions relative to the current sample (402) [Fig. 13]’) [Fig. 7; para. 0212-0214: ‘The second one or more directions are symmetrically opposite to the first one or more directions relative to the current sample’] or multiple luma classification blocks [para. 0083, 0119: ‘samples in a picture are classified into twenty-five (25) classes’; ‘the total number of operations per filtered Luma sample’].
Regarding claim 4, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the restricted area corresponds to causal region (i.e. ‘previously coded frame’) [para. 0087, 0160, 0177, 0202: ‘Filters derived for previously coded frames are stored’; ‘one or more previously coded pictures stored in DBP 218’ used for ALF] of a currently processed unit containing the current sample ].
Regarding claim 5, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 4, wherein the currently processed unit corresponds to the current sample (i.e. I(x,y)) [para. 0116-0118: Eq. 3 and 4].
Regarding claim 6, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 4, wherein the currently processed unit corresponds to a block containing the current sample (i.e. I(x,y)) [para. 0116-0118: Eq. 3 and 4].
Regarding claim 7, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the ALF comprises a second input term (i.e. ‘second set of input sample’) [Fig. 13: Determine second set of input sample ‘404’; Perform clipping function ‘408’; Fig. 7; para. 0072-0075, 0116-0117, 0212-0214: ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’] associated with one or more neighbouring intermediate ALF-filtered samples (i.e. ‘respective intermediate values’, ‘neighbor sample values I(x+i, y+j)’) [Fig. 7; para. 0116-0118, 0148, 0212-0214: ‘multiply respective filter coefficients … with the respective generated clipped samples to generate respective intermediate values’; equation 3 or 4], and
wherein said one or more neighbouring intermediate ALF-filtered samples are from a second restricted area (e.g. ‘a block boundary of the block’; ‘samples located along a second one or more directions relative to the current sample (404) [Fig. 13]’) [Fig. 7; para. 0212-0214: ‘The second one or more directions are symmetrically opposite to the first one or more directions relative to the current sample’] with respect to the current sample (i.e. I(x,y)) [para. 0116-0118: Eq. 3 and 4].
Regarding claim 8, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 9, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) (i.e. ‘Filter Unit 312’ including ALF ‘346’ ) [Figs. 8-10; para. 0196, 0203: ‘filter unit 312 may be configured to perform ALF techniques’]processing of reconstructed video, the method comprising:
receiving reconstructed pixels, wherein the reconstructed pixels comprise a current block (i.e. ‘predictive block’) [Fig. 8; para. 0207: the ‘Reconstruction unit 214’; ‘Filter unit 216 may then perform filtering (e.g. ALF filtering …) based on the output from reconstruction unit 214’];
deriving a current filtered output from an ALF (i.e. ‘perform adaptive loop filtering … on samples resulting from the reconstruction of a current block’) for a current sample in the current block [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF] for a current sample in the current block,
wherein the ALF comprises an input term (i.e. ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’) [para. 0072-0075, 0212] associated with a modification term (i.e. ‘respective intermediate values’) corresponding to an output [para. 0118, 0148: ‘multiply respective filter coefficients … with the respective generated clipped samples to generate respective intermediate values’; equation 4] by filtering clipped neighbouring difference values [para. 0116-0118: equation 4 has clipping function K] using filter coefficients of fixed filter sets [para. 0083: ‘Optimal filter coefficients for each class are predicted using a prediction pool of fixed filters’], and
wherein the neighbouring difference values are determined between neighbouring samples and a to-be-processed sample (i.e. ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’) [para. 0072-0075, 0116-0118: Equation 14]; and
providing filtered-reconstructed pixels (i.e. ‘decoded picture buffer 218’) [Fig. 8; para. 0177: ‘filter unit 216 may store the filtered reconstructed blocks to DPB 218’], wherein the filtered-reconstructed pixels comprise the current filtered output [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF].
Regarding claim 10, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 9, wherein the modification term is used directly to determine the current filtered output without clipping [para. 0116: Equation 3].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Hanhart et al. (“Hanhart”) [US 2020/0260120 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the restricted area corresponds to a same 2x2 luma block as the current sample [para. 0057: ‘the sample dimensions of a block’: “NxN” where ‘N represents a nonnegative integer value’].
Hu does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the restricted area corresponds to a same 2x2 luma block as the current sample.
However in the same field of endeavor Hanhart discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the restricted area corresponds to a same 2x2 luma block as the current sample [para. 0075: ‘An adaptive loop filter (ALF) may be used’; ‘For the luma component, a 2x2 block … may be classified into one of 25 categories to select appropriate filter coefficients for that block’].
Hu and Hanhart are combinable because they are from the same field of data video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hu and Liu as motivation to apply ALF to a 2x2 luma block for “Virtual reality (VR)” in various applications [Hanhart: para. 0002-0008].
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Liu et al. (“Liu”) [US 2021/0385446 A1]
Regarding claim 11, Hu meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 9.
Hu does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of Claim 9, wherein the modification term is used clipped to reduce a required bit depth [It is obvious that clipping does not increase bit depth].
However in the same field of endeavor Liu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the modification term is used clipped to reduce a required bit depth [para. 0077-0080: ‘include the maximum sample value (here 1024 for 10 bits bit-depth)’; Table 2 includes ‘Authorize clipping values to reduce a required bit depth for luma and chroma].
Hu and Liu are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hu and Liu as motivation to include the ‘maximum sample value’ so that clipping can be disable if it is not necessary [Liu: para. 0077].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488